Relative Comparison of Additive Manufacturing: Inconel 718
Arnob Banik
1
Additive Manufacturing
2
Inconel 718 (IN718)
3
Alloying elements
4
Phases in IN718
5
Phase� | Crystal structure | Chemical formula |
γ | fcc | Ni |
γ′′ | bct | Ni3Nb |
γ′ | fcc | Ni3(Al,Ti) |
δ | orthorhombic | Ni3Nb |
MC | cubic | (Nb,Ti)C |
Laves | hexagonal | (Ni,Fe,Cr)2(Nb,Mo,Ti) |
Manufacturing IN718
6
Electron Beam Melting
7
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09506608.2016.1176289
Selective Laser Melting (SLM)
8
www.eos.info/additive_manufacturing/for_technology_interested
Microstructure�EBM
9
SEM micrographs showing the microstructures in the contour region imaged (a) parallel to and (c) perpendicular to building direction (BD), and in the hatch region imaged (b) parallel to and (d) perpendicular to building direction (BD)
Microstructure�SLM
10
SEM micrographs showing the unetched microstructures of the as-manufactured vertically built (a) and horizontally built (b) samples, (c) and (d) are the magnified areas marked in (a) and (b) respectively
Schematic depicting the geometry of as-manufactured�block
δ phase - EBM
11
Precipitates in as-manufactured sample characterized parallel to the building direction: (a) BSE image showing the generally distribution of precipitates in the sample, (b) magnified area indicated in (a), (c) EDS spectrum of precipitate indicated in (b), (d) IPF colouring map identifying low angle (white colour, 2–15°) and high angle (black colour, >15°) grain boundaries of this interested area, (e) grain boundary morphology corresponding to the low angle grain boundary indicated in (d), and (f) grain boundary morphology corresponding to the high angle grain boundary indicated in (d).
γ″- EBM
12
TEM images showing as-manufactured microstructure in the hatch region: (a) Bright-field image showing coherent precipitates in the γ matrix; �(b) Diffraction pattern of [001] zone of γ matrix exhibiting γ′ and γ′' superlattice reflections; (c) Dark-field image using the γ″(110)/γ′(011) diffraction spot; (d) Dark-field image using the γ″(011) diffraction spot; (e)
HRTEM image and the corresponding FFT diffractogram of the TiN precipitate
Precipitates – SLM
13
(a)TEM bright field micrograph of the as-manufactured horizontally built sample and the inserted is the diffraction pattern from the corresponding area. (b)high-resolution TEM taken from the dash-square area indicated in (a) and the FFT (Fourier transformation). (c)TEM bright field micrograph of the as-manufactured vertically built sample and the inserted is the diffraction pattern from the corresponding area.
Heat Treatment
14
Hardness Test
15
Tensile Test
16
EBM
17
SLM
18
Residual Stress- EBM
19
Residual Stress - SLM
20
Comparison
21
| | EBM IN718 | SLM 718 |
Microstructure | Grain Morphology | Columnar, elongated along BD, can up to millimeter | Irregular, a few hundred microns |
Texture | Strong <100> BD | Non-textured | |
Homogenity | Microstructure gradient�near the top surface | Homogeneous throughout the sample | |
Precipitate | γ′/γ′′, δ,�carbide/nitride/carbonitride,�Laves (just present near the top surface) | Laves | |
Mechanical Properties | Hardness | ∼ HV0:3 = 428 | ∼ HV0:3 = 325 |
Tensile Anisotropy | Yes | Yes, reduces with heat treatment | |
Tensile strength | //BD: 1113 MPa, |_BD: 1002 MPa | //BD: 989 MPa, |_BD: 1068 MPa | |
Elongation | // BD: 31 %, |_ BD: 40 % | // BD: 35 %, |_BD: 31 % | |
Tensile properties deviation | EBM samples have larger deviation than SLM samples | ||
Strengthening mechanism | by γ′/γ′′ | by residual strain and dislocations | |
Surface roughness | SLM samples have better surface roughness than EBM samples | ||
Residual Stress | EBM IN718 has less residual stress | ||
WHICH IS BETTER?
22
Powder Bed Binder Jet 3D Printing
23
Schematic of binder jet 3D printing process.
Conclusion
24
Future Work
References
25
26
Thank You